From the House of Representatives to the Leader’s House
According to Iran Gate, in recent days, the remarks of Morteza Agha Tehrani, a representative of Tehran and a member of the Stability Front, about the status and position of the parliament have caused many reactions.
The head of the parliamentary cultural commission emphasized the need to save the country’s economy from the grip of the dollar and said that the vision of the second step of the Supreme Leader should receive more attention from officials.
In his speech during today’s public session of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, Hojatoleslam Morteza Agha Tehrani expressed gratitude to the three branches of government for their cooperation and stated that understanding the problems and difficulties of the people by the representatives and the government is a positive point that should be considered.
He addressed the country’s policymakers and said, ‘We, as policymakers, must consider the fact that our politics is our religion and our religion is our politics, which some do not accept. Unfortunately, secularism, which is the separation of religion from politics, is one of the dangers of today and is observed among officials to some extent.’
The representative of Tehran in the Islamic Consultative Assembly continued, stating that if we do not truly understand Islam, we will eventually be afflicted with this disease. Some people look at the past and the Enlightenment era that happened in Europe, where the church and its leaders were condemned for their misdeeds. However, it should be noted that Islam is not Christianity, our clergy are not the leaders of the church, and our mosques are not churches. And our people are not the people of Europe.
Mr. Tehrani, while referring to Quranic verses about those who disregard and accept only a part of the religion, emphasized that responsible representatives and ministers should be aware that we should not be among the compromisers who accept only certain parts of the religion, because if we become sectarian, according to the explicit text of the Quran, we are not Muslims.
He emphasized that in contemporary and current issues, we must refer to the position of the Supreme Leader. He said that we should see what the Leader wants, as the realization of the position of the Supreme Leader is the main goal of the Parliament. Because the primary and secondary titles and issues should come from the Leader, and they should be addressed in different committees of the Parliament. If only we could all implement the laws and oaths that we have learned practically, and let the Supreme Leader have authority over us. Every time we go to serve the esteemed Leader, his words are enlightening. But I don’t see it reaching us in the Parliament. This is the flaw of us, the representatives and the cultural committee.
These statements are made with such an approach that the Parliament is the place of manifestation of the people’s will in all democratic countries, and even in the Islamic Republic system, according to the interpretation of the Leader and the founder of the system, it is seen as the head of affairs. This kind of view can perhaps be interpreted in line with Masbah Yazdi’s perspective, and it may be better understood in the context of the admiration and closeness of Mr. Tehranian to Masbah in his definition of Masbah.
Mr. Tehrani described Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi in the anniversary ceremony of his death as a humble, devout, religious scholar who believed in the importance of seeking guidance from the Ahlul Bayt (the family of the Prophet Muhammad). However, the danger of this ideology and intellectual approach can be seen in the statements of Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi regarding the importance of people’s votes in determining the type and form of governance.
Mesbah Yazdi says that democracy, which has authenticity for the West, only has instrumental value for us. People’s votes do not bring legitimacy for us, they bring acceptance. It is possible that in the future, the law will be such that people have to express their opinion in determining the governor. This law and process do not have any problem from an Islamic perspective. But this does not mean that people give him legitimacy, rather people express their inclination through voting, otherwise the main ruling comes from the command of God, the Prophet, the Imams, and the Supreme Leader.
He was a theorist who became famous for the theory of absolute guardianship of the jurist (velayat-e faqih) in the middle decades of the Islamic Revolution. This theory has entered the country’s constitution and is considered an integral and influential part of the fate of Iranians. Belief in and commitment to this theory is considered a prerequisite for political activity.
Masbah believes that if we accept that the issue of guardianship of the jurist is an appointed one, meaning that the jurist is appointed by divine authority, then the criterion for validity and legitimacy is derived from God. The qualified jurist has the authority to make decisions regarding the lives and properties of Muslims, although these decisions cannot be implemented without popular acceptance. Let’s assume we discover that Mr. X is an example of such an appointed jurist by the Imam of the Time, but the people are not aware of it, so practically nothing is achieved. According to the theory of appointment, if he orders the formation of a parliament and the people elect the members of the parliament, this action gains credibility based on his authority.
They pass laws, and the validity of these laws is based on his statement that this parliament is legitimate and that obedience to it is obligatory. This originates from divine guardianship and is derived from his government. In our opinion, all the regulations implemented in the Islamic Republic of Iran derive their validity from the authority of the jurist and his endorsement. If we know that it is not satisfied with a specific matter, it has no credibility. Sometimes it determines a specific case, and sometimes it approves an institution.
The fact that the Supreme Leader approved the constitution means that I give orders to act in this way and it gains credibility because he has signed it. If he had not signed it, it would have had no effect, even if all the people voted for it, it would have had no legal or religious credibility, as he himself has stated.
According to the theory of installation, the credibility of the constitution derives from his signature. However, according to the theory of choice, justifying the credibility of laws and actions is problematic. They say that the majority’s acceptance is the credibility giver, but how is the non-acceptance of the minority justified? All the problems that exist in democracy are raised here.
Some of them are answerable, but many of them are not answerable. However, according to the theory of popular appointment, they discover a personality with authority. The condition for its tangible realization is also his acceptance. If people do not accept it, it cannot have a tangible impact. This matter was accepted by everyone regarding Imam Khomeini. The whole world also understood that the Iranian Revolution, meaning the Khomeini Revolution, did not need anything else. The assumption is that Imam was a clear example of the general appointment of the Imam of the Time. And everyone accepted it. More than this, acceptance is not possible in any system.
Now, this perspective and insight are being theorized by the students and followers of Mousavi in the levels of legislation and executive governance. This development has reached the point where the position of the parliament, which was at the forefront of affairs at the beginning of the revolution, is now seen and believed to be a collective office of the leadership’s office. Its success depends on the level of obedience to the Leader’s directives. It seems that the death knell of the republican system has sounded, and the front of stability and Mousavi’s followers are the pioneers of this symphony of death.
The retreat of the parliament from its decision.
مشاهده این مقاله به زبان فارسی